Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Dec 24 2008, 9:04 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: PATRICIA CARESS MCMATH Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana RICHARD C. WEBSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
T.T., Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0805-JV-454

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Beth Jansen, Judge Cause Nos. 49D09-0705-JD-1468 49D09-0603-JD-966 49D09-0503-JD-1399 49D09-0410-JD-4634

December 24, 2008

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BARNES, Judge

Case Summary T. T. appeals his delinquency adjudication for Class A misdemeanor battery, and his commitment to the Department of Correction ("DOC"). We affirm. Issues The issues before us are: I. whether there is sufficient evidence to uphold T.T.'s adjudication for battery; and whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it committed T.T. to the DOC until he reaches age twenty-one. Facts On May 4, 2007, Charles Stinson was riding his bike westbound on Washington Street in Indianapolis when he observed five boys walking toward him. As Stinson neared the group, the group split. Stinson attempted to ride through the group, but when he did, the boys struck Stinson in the face and on the head with their fists. The assaults resulted in bodily injury to Stinson. Stinson dismounted his bicycle and fled from the juveniles. The group walked away from the scene. Stinson followed them from a short distance, but kept them in sight. A police car passed, and Stinson was able to flag it down; he informed Officer Charles King what had happened. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police quickly apprehended 2

II.

the five boys. Stinson identified T.T. as one of the boys who assaulted him. Stinson said out of the five boys who hit him, he was positive he knew who hit him first and last. Stinson stated T.T. hit him first, and he knew this because T.T. was the first boy to reach him. He also identified T.T. by the clothes he was wearing. The State alleged T.T. was delinquent for committing Class A misdemeanor battery. The juvenile court adjudicated T.T. to be delinquent. In its disposition of T.T.'s case, the juvenile court considered all relevant facts and circumstances, including the predispositional report. The juvenile court committed T.T. to the DOC until he reaches age twenty-one. T.T. now appeals his delinquency adjudication and commitment to the DOC. Analysis I. Sufficiency of the Evidence T.T. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that supports his conviction. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence in a juvenile adjudication, we do not re-weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Instead, we look only to the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment and to the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. We affirm if there is substantial probative evidence to support the conclusion. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 543 (Ind. 2006). We only reverse a juvenile court's decision if no reasonable fact-finder could have found the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). In order to overcome reasonable doubt, the State does not need to overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147. 3

Battery as a class A misdemeanor is governed by Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-1. It provides: "[A] person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor. However, the offense is: (1) a Class A misdemeanor if: (A) it results in bodily injury to another person." I.C.

Download In the Matter of T.T..pdf

Indiana Law